On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:51:08 +0100
Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On 1 November 2016 at 18:23, Vincent Gross
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 01:07:51 +0200
> > Vincent Gross wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:58:10 +0200
> >> Vincent Gross wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> [snip]
> >> >
>
On 1 November 2016 at 18:23, Vincent Gross wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 01:07:51 +0200
> Vincent Gross wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:58:10 +0200
>> Vincent Gross wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > Aside from the mbuf issue, is this Ok ?
>>
>> I will go back on the mbuff stuff later.
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 01:07:51 +0200
Vincent Gross wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:58:10 +0200
> Vincent Gross wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Aside from the mbuf issue, is this Ok ?
>
> I will go back on the mbuff stuff later.
>
> Diff rebased, ok anyone ?
>
New rebase, tested on
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 20:41 +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:06:46AM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 20:48 +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 12:13:20PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > > > m_pullup will always get a new mbuf a
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:06:46AM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 20:48 +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 12:13:20PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > > m_pullup will always get a new mbuf and on
> > > strict alignment architectures you will always do a m
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 20:48 +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 12:13:20PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > m_pullup will always get a new mbuf and on
> > strict alignment architectures you will always do a m_dup_pkt
> > (verified by my -DTEST1).
>
> i didnt think m_pullup was t
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 12:13:20PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:11 +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:30:27 +0200
> > Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:58 +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:27:12
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:11 +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:30:27 +0200
> Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:58 +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
> >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:27:12 +0200
> >> Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:07 +0200
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:30:27 +0200
Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:58 +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:27:12 +0200
>> Mike Belopuhov wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:07 +0200, Vincent Gross wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:58:10 +0200
>> >> Vince
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 20:36 +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 14:30 +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:58 +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
> > > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:27:12 +0200
> > > Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:07 +0200,
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 14:30 +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:58 +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:27:12 +0200
> > Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:07 +0200, Vincent Gross wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:58:10 +0200
> > >>
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:58 +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:27:12 +0200
> Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:07 +0200, Vincent Gross wrote:
> >> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:58:10 +0200
> >> Vincent Gross wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> [snip]
> >> >
> >
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:27:12 +0200
Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:07 +0200, Vincent Gross wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:58:10 +0200
>> Vincent Gross wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > Aside from the mbuf issue, is this Ok ?
>>
>> I will go back on the mbuff stuf
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:07 +0200, Vincent Gross wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:58:10 +0200
> Vincent Gross wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Aside from the mbuf issue, is this Ok ?
>
> I will go back on the mbuff stuff later.
>
> Diff rebased, ok anyone ?
>
> Index: net/if_vxlan.c
>
On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:58:10 +0200
Vincent Gross wrote:
> Hi,
>
[snip]
>
> Aside from the mbuf issue, is this Ok ?
I will go back on the mbuff stuff later.
Diff rebased, ok anyone ?
Index: net/if_vxlan.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/s
Hi,
As said in Subject:.
I would like to get comments on the m_adj/m_pullup dance at the end of
vxlan_lookup() ; I do this because ether_input() access the ethernet header
with mtod(), and under some conditions the mbuf handled would have its
first data chunk empty (mh_len == 0). What is the rule
16 matches
Mail list logo